Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Unum · 12-11-2002, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
Unum said:
"If you were to see everything in the universe as ugly, then yes the universe to you would be ugly. Likewise, if you were to see everything in the universe as beautiful, then the universe would be considered beautiful."

Wrong.

Beautiful and ugly are comparitive evaluations. There is nothing else with which to compare 'everything', so it would be ludicrous to claim that the universe is 'ugly'.

Ugly--compared to what?

Everything is also a comparative word, for there to be everything there must be nothing. In other words, that which is most beautiful is also at the same time the most ugly. It is all just a matter of perspective. I can choose to view something as beautiful, but in reality it is neither beautiful nor ugly, it just is. It is at this singular point where the laws of mathematics, human comprehension and logic (particularily the law of non-contradiction) break down.

Quote:

Earlier, I said:
"It's irrational to think that there is one overriding all-encompassing characteristic to the universe, when clearly this is not the case at all."

You replied:
The universe is One, that in and of iteself is all-encompassing and hardly irrational.

Unum, this is not a rebuttal. All you did is restate your original claim. That in no way comprises any sort of argument.

Keith.

Why would I need a rebuttal? The definition of universe is "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated" which being the whole body of things is all-encompassing in it's very definition.

Peace,

Unum

Keith Russell · 12-11-2002, 12:52 PM

Unum:

The universe isn't a 'thing', though. It is instead the sum of all things. (Big difference.) It is therefore not a 'One' at all, but a (very great, but ultimately finite) 'Many'.

Keith.

Jobar · 12-11-2002, 02:05 PM

In theology, when we want to talk about the all-in-one that is one-in-all, we use the word god, or one of its equivalents in other languages.

In science, that same unity/multiplicity is referred to as the universe. (Consider the linguistic origin of the word.)

I would say that god has more connotations of unity, particularly for Westerners. And universe is more thought of as the group which includes all things- the accent more on multiplicity.

Both words are attempts to name things too big for names.

Unum · 12-11-2002, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
Unum:

The universe isn't a 'thing', though. It is instead the sum of all things. (Big difference.) It is therefore not a 'One' at all, but a (very great, but ultimately finite) 'Many'.

Keith.

Just as you have one name that identifies you, yet in reality are made up of many parts, so the universe has one name that in reality is made of many parts.

Peace,

Unum

Unum · 12-11-2002, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:

Both words are attempts to name things too big for names.

Exactly. The thing is, any word will do as long as the definitions of the words remain equivalent. It is the concept that is the same regardless of the label we choose to attach to it.

Peace,

Unum

Eclectic eye · 12-11-2002, 03:53 PM

Unum,

Dharma is NOT a deity, it is a word that means "duty". Karma is not a deity, it is a word that means "deed". Would you say "God, Allah, karma etc."? It wouldn't make sense and it shows me you ARE fuzzy about Hindu deities.

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are aspects of Brahman, translated as "The Absolute", as in "All that exists is Brahman" a line from Hindu scriptures. (Kinda like your concept, huh?)

It's obvious to me that I understand Hinduism just a wee bit better than you, sir, so please don't bullshit me. I say that with all due respect, Unum.

Eclectic eye · 12-11-2002, 04:40 PM

Unum,

You wrote:
"This parallel between ourselves and stars can also be extended to form a plausible explanation of heaven and hell, that I'll share with you if you like"

If you would, sir, please explain.

Thanks

Unum · 12-11-2002, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eclectic eye:
Unum,

Dharma is NOT a deity, it is a word that means "duty". Karma is not a deity, it is a word that means "deed". Would you say "God, Allah, karma etc."? It wouldn't make sense and it shows me you ARE fuzzy about Hindu deities.

When did I ever say it was a deity? It would be like I said "God, Allah, The Tao, everything, etc." Some of these are not deities, regardless they all have equivalent definitions. No, I would not include karma in this either, because that is not an equivalent concept. Dharma, however, is. 'Duty' is just one of many definitions of Dharma. Two other definitions for Dharma are 'Universal law; ultimate truth' and 'basic, minute elements from which all things are made'.

I'll admit that I am not all that familar with Hindu deities, however that is not at issue as I was never talking about a Hindu deity in the first place, I was talking about a Hindu and Buddhist religious concept that can be considered equivalent to God and/or Allah.

Quote:

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are aspects of Brahman, translated as "The Absolute", as in "All that exists is Brahman" a line from Hindu scriptures. (Kinda like your concept, huh?)

Yes, Brahman would be another term for it.

Quote:

It's obvious to me that I understand Hinduism just a wee bit better than you, sir, so please don't bullshit me. I say that with all due respect, Unum.

You probably understand Hinduism not just a wee bit better than I, but quite a bit better. So what is your point? I never claimed to be an expert in Hinduism, nor any other religion for that matter, however I am quite proficient at finding the similarities and patterns of them all.

Peace,

Unum

LLaurieG · 12-11-2002, 05:24 PM

(Laurie) Interesting topic, Unum. I've read your argument and all replies. May I join in?

Quote:

Unum: As for me, I try to believe in everything and anything. I do this, so as to not place a limit upon myself and what is possible. My reality is determined by what I believe it to be. The only thing that can hold me back is myself. I think it's self-defeating to believe that something isn't possible.

(Laurie) Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings from the 1970's novel Illusions by Richard Bach (author of Jonathan Livingston Seagull). "Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours."

Quote:

(Unum) In the Bible and Quaran God or Allah has been defined as being a singular all-powerful, all-knowing entity, which this entity that I speak of is...

(Laurie) You described the entity is all-everything. As being both halves of every dualism.

Quote:

(Unum) Some say there is no evidence for God, Allah, dharma, etc., I couldn't disagree more. All evidence points directly towards it.

(Laurie) If, as you seem to, you posit this One as that which is All; everything; encompassing all known entities, it seems to me with the statement above you are simply saying "All evidence [each little bit] points directly toward there being evidence." Is this not self-evident?

Quote:

(Keith) Why do we need the 'universe' to be 'God'?

(Unum) We don't need it to be God. However if the universe is defined as "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated" and God is defined as "all-powerful and all-knowing" then these are also equivalent definitions. It might not seem that way on the surface but if you logically follow them to their conclusion they are.

[From a different paragraph in Unum's same post] If someone claims God is all-powerful, then by logical extension this God then must be all things, as anything that exists has the ability to cause an effect and therefore has power. I would agree that many Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others would not agree with me categorizing God or Allah in this way. Yet these groups often throw out the notion that God or Allah is all-powerful, but in saying this it is obvious that they haven't followed it all the way through to it's logical meaning. That's my take on it.

(Keith) The universe isn't a 'thing' though. It is instead the sum of all things (big difference). It is therefore not a 'One' at all, but a (very great, but ultimately finite) 'Many'.

(Unum) Just as you have one name that identifies you, yet in reality are made up of many parts, so the universe has one name [but] in reality is made of many parts.

(Laurie) One can name anything. Humans named the universe "the universe" (and I use the term in its scientific sense).

But naming the thing does not imply whatsoever that the universe consists of more than merely the sum of its parts. In particular, it does not imply that the universe possesses or manifests some sort of self-awareness or some inexplicable, omniscient consciousness. I am sure you comprehend the distinction here.

What I am unsure of is whether the argument you offer here for contemplating the universe as "the One" constitutes an argument for deism on your part.

Eclectic eye · 12-11-2002, 10:59 PM

Unum,
You said to me:
"You probably understand Hinduism not just a wee bit better than I, but quite a bit better. So what is your point?"

My point, sir, is that you are reiterating ancient Brahmanic Wisdom. The Hindu's beat you to "it" over 4,000 years ago! Nothing in your concept of the "Absolute" is original, sir. If you had researched Hindu Cosmology with a critical eye, you would've realized the unoriginality of your theory.
That, Unum, is my point!!

I do admire you for working it out in your mind, though, I really do! You have a mystical bent.

You said:
"This parallel between ourselves and stars can also be extended to form a plausible explanation of heaven and hell, that I'll share with you if you like"

I would be very interested in reading your explanation. In all seriousness, would you please share it with us?

Thank you, Unum.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-11-2002, 12:52 PM	#52
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Unum: The universe isn't a 'thing', though. It is instead the sum of all things. (Big difference.) It is therefore not a 'One' at all, but a (very great, but ultimately finite) 'Many'. Keith.

12-11-2002, 02:05 PM	#53
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	In theology, when we want to talk about the all-in-one that is one-in-all, we use the word god, or one of its equivalents in other languages. In science, that same unity/multiplicity is referred to as the universe. (Consider the linguistic origin of the word.) I would say that god has more connotations of unity, particularly for Westerners. And universe is more thought of as the group which includes all things- the accent more on multiplicity. Both words are attempts to name things too big for names.

12-11-2002, 03:53 PM	#56
Eclectic eye Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Deep center field Posts: 28	Unum, Dharma is NOT a deity, it is a word that means "duty". Karma is not a deity, it is a word that means "deed". Would you say "God, Allah, karma etc."? It wouldn't make sense and it shows me you ARE fuzzy about Hindu deities. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are aspects of Brahman, translated as "The Absolute", as in "All that exists is Brahman" a line from Hindu scriptures. (Kinda like your concept, huh?) It's obvious to me that I understand Hinduism just a wee bit better than you, sir, so please don't bullshit me. I say that with all due respect, Unum.

12-11-2002, 04:40 PM	#57
Eclectic eye Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Deep center field Posts: 28	Unum, You wrote: "This parallel between ourselves and stars can also be extended to form a plausible explanation of heaven and hell, that I'll share with you if you like" If you would, sir, please explain. Thanks

12-11-2002, 10:59 PM	#60
Eclectic eye Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Deep center field Posts: 28	Unum, You said to me: "You probably understand Hinduism not just a wee bit better than I, but quite a bit better. So what is your point?" My point, sir, is that you are reiterating ancient Brahmanic Wisdom. The Hindu's beat you to "it" over 4,000 years ago! Nothing in your concept of the "Absolute" is original, sir. If you had researched Hindu Cosmology with a critical eye, you would've realized the unoriginality of your theory. That, Unum, is my point!! I do admire you for working it out in your mind, though, I really do! You have a mystical bent. You said: "This parallel between ourselves and stars can also be extended to form a plausible explanation of heaven and hell, that I'll share with you if you like" I would be very interested in reading your explanation. In all seriousness, would you please share it with us? Thank you, Unum.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.